Is it true that....

[Servant's <3]

Michael does have a point, even if it is not what is being talked about at the moment.

Having a "respect of persons" is a big problem in the church. It is NOT mostly found in who wears clothing in the style of the church as much as it is found in who is wealthy and who is not.

Everybody wants to be friends with and make sure their children are friends with the wealthy. They make plans with the wealthy etc etc. Few if any show any care toward those with less.

I cannot speak for all churches but at the 5-6 I have either visited or attend in my area none of them have ever made mention of someone's lack of "proper attire" for coming into the church building. I am not talking about for myself either. I have had friends come to church in blue jeans/t-shirts. I know of several people who only wear blue jeans and/or flannel shirts to church. They have been coming for years. If someone has said something to them, they either ignored those people or it was never made mention.

Now, as to platform standards (which is what I think you really have a problem with), if a pastor desires those that preach from the pulpit or lead others in singing to dress a certain way, that is their choice. If you desire to sing/preach at that church then you should conform to the desires of the pastor concerning dress. If you don't want to conform because of (probably pride but I can't say definitively) whatever reason you wish to present, that is your choice, you should find somewhere else to preach/sing. If you can't find somewhere else to preach/sing then I suggest you think about what is really important.

Is "I shouldn't have to wear a suit to preach/sing" more important than "God desires me to minister" ?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I believe you are missing the point.

Perhaps. But perhaps making a point at the expense of sinners who "can't discern between their right hand and their left hand" isn't the way to go?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Perhaps. But perhaps making a point at the expense of sinners who "can't discern between their right hand and their left hand" isn't the way to go?

I understand you, but using the label "sinner' doesn't excuse people from walking into a 7 11 only wearing slippers, pajama bottoms and a bra.

[votivesoul]

There is no excuse for sin, not even ignorance, in the judgment. But why does a person walk into a 7/11 in only slippers, pajamas, and a bra?

Because she (and sometimes, he) IS A SINNER. So, in either case, the point being made against someone for doing such a thing is because they are dead in trespasses, and don't know much better.

If and when these folks receive the Holy Spirit, they fly right soon enough!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

There is no excuse for sin, not even ignorance, in the judgment. But why does a person walk into a 7/11 in only slippers, pajamas, and a bra?

Because she (and sometimes, he) IS A SINNER. So, in either case, the point being made against someone for doing such a thing is because they are dead in trespasses, and don't know much better.

If and when these folks receive the Holy Spirit, they fly right soon enough!

Sorry, but my parents (who would of definitely been classified as sinners) would disagree. Being able to get yourself together is in no way a religious experience. Causal attire has taken on a whole new meaning.

[shazeep]

i am surprised, VS. How is the 711 person "sinning?"

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i am surprised, VS. How is the 711 person "sinning?"

Start another thread.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i am surprised, VS. How is the 711 person "sinning?"

Immodest exposure of the human body, often the cause of lustful attraction in men, but also in women, misses of the mark of God's glory, which is His righteousness.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Immodest exposure of the human body, often the cause of lustful attraction in men, but also in women, misses of the mark of God's glory, which is His righteousness.

What was exposed, beyond bad taste or whatever? I'll tell you; your sensibilities are exposed. You are offended, yes? How do you offend a Christian?

I mean, if that is a sin, and a temptation, then a black guy with his pants down around his thighs is no problem, right, because everything is covered enough to call "modest" by some standard--at least not sexually overt. Yet we experience pretty much the same offense at this, yes? what is breast feeding in public?

So the fault lies with the eye and the eyer. Imo it is a trap to be offended, just as it admittedly is to offend also. Yes, she is pretty obviously attention seeking, and messed up; don't get me wrong. So don't be looking. EB, hopefully you see how this goes to the point, even though it is just a hypothetical.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by shazeep

EB, hopefully you see how this goes to the point, even though it is just a hypothetical.

I didn't bring up the pajama wearing female for any reason of immodesty.

How about this, guy walks into Dixie Pig with his pants hanging around his thighs his underwear are obviously dirty, dirtier then my mechanic rags in the trunk of my car. He is wear dirty socks with slippers. Immodesty is the least of this guy's problems. What I'm trying to point out is that toenail clippers, shampoo, deodorant, shaving cream, and Ivory soap, is used by saint and sinner alike. Church isn't even required to maintain some sort of reasonable clean appearance. If the guy (and gal) showed up in church no one would expect them to look like movie stars, but someone who has been in the church for 40 years should at least be able to brush their teeth.

Oh, the guy with the droopy draws, got out of a 2015 white Mercedes, handed me his church card when he saw my Bible on the table.